 |
| Tarongo Zoo's Jumilah |
It rather confused me until I realised that academics were so distrustful of the Wiki medium because it rudely offered other arguments on a particular issue, which counteracted their delusional, one-sided, left wing opinion and delusional, one-sided, left wing textbooks. And, more importantly, they had to undergo some scrutiny from a source that hadn't passed their stamp of approval, which meant they weren’t able to freely indoctrinate us poor sods.
You think I'm exaggerating? My Political Science lecturer refused to even acknowledge the existence of Ronald Reagan when we studied the Cold War, let alone the fact that he ended it, which involved me storming out of the lecture in disgust. DISGUST! I was TOTES CAPSLOCK ANGRY. Unbelievable little sheltered world these academics reside in. Often crazy smart, but usually crazy delusional.
I remember one occasion when I went to my PolSci tute and counteracted a different but typically left wing tutor with, "well, Wikipedia mentions other arguments too", knowing full well the glare and indignation I would receive from the sanctimonious twat. The horror on his face. Ah, memories. They were good times indeed.
Hm, I didn't want to write about Wikipedia or academic brainwashers. *sigh* I'm still working on that going-off-on-tangents disorder that so afflicts me. Anyway, so last Christmas I was blessed with a gift voucher to attend a Feed the Animals thingy at Canberra's National Zoo and Aquarium, and I am taking up the kind offer next weekend. Should be amazing, unless of course I have my arm mutilated by a wild animal.
I've been completely besotted with big cats since a very young age, particularly tigers, because they are just so darn terrifying, yet so photogenic. It disheartens me that they are so endangered that they need to be protected from man via cages, but it is for the best, and they lead extremely pampered lives in the zoo clink, so all is well with that in my mind. I just hope the lions and tigers and bears will get off Wikipedia for long enough to say hello.
4 comments:
I'm pretty sure the reason that academics don't like Wikipedia is not because it presents alternative views but because anyone can edit it so the information on it is very likely to be incorrect or unsubstantiated.
Also, capslock angry <3
It's Kahlia! We are like ships that pass in the night, except also during the day sometimes <3
Wikipedia is incorrect or unsubstantiated by who? Humanities academics? I take your point, and I agree with you, but they are only interested in pushing their political agenda and refuse to acknowledge anything that challenges it, often including peer-reviewed papers that oppose their world view. Actually they don't give a shit about teaching and are only doing it to get money for their next research project. Or maybe it was just the ones I had.
Of course they swear by The Age newspaper - my tutor used to bring us politics news articles as part of his weekly strategy of bashing the Howard Government - and I'm pretty sure they were not peer-reviewed. This is why I dumped politics and picked up psych. Best uni-decision ever. You're lucky your studying that IT stuff. That stuff that I don't understand.
No - I'm not saying it's always incorrect on unsubstantiated. But often, the claims made in Wikipedia articles (even if they are cited) can be falsified. I'm sure you've heard Dan's story about how he edited Wikipedia to serve a story.
Point is, I can go onto Wikipedia right now and write anything I want in any article that I want - anyone can do that. I can also link whatever "references" as citations that I want, too. However, unless you actually visit those references to independently verify that it's relevant (and correct), you can't ever be sure that what you read on Wikipedia is factual. It's a good place to get a general idea of topics, and to find references to peer-reviewed articles or to decent sources - but the fact that it can be edited by anyone drops its verifiability (that's a word now) pretty much completely.
I totes agree with you about Wiki. That word is totes growing on me. I'm almost totes ghetto and whatnot.
My issue is with leftwing humanities academics. They think they have ownership on what is 'truth' and 'fact'. I imagine they'll accept any of the references on Wikipedia that link to their work. But their work is based on one political world view. They completely diregarded other views, eg that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. Having a INternational Politics textbook that does not mention RR is outrageous. OUTRAGEOUS! The worst part is that I don't even care anymore. My uni politics experience was about learning what to think, as opposed to learning how to think.
Now this might piss you off, but I would likely trust wikipedia over a leftwing politics textbook anyday, because I know that people are arguing over the topic with each, even if the information is 'incorrect'. And I'm sort of not even joking.
Post a Comment